The undoing of Nokia's mobile division was their own fault. They should have never partnered with MS in the first place, and it's not like MS was twisting their arm to do the deal. They took a gamble with Windows Phone OS instead of continuing with their own MeeGo mobile OS and it didn't pay off, so their shares plummeted due to lack of interest from operators which led to a lack of sales. Nothing was deliberate, Windows Phone OS just sucked and nobody wanted to use it, but still, in a way it was MS's fault because of a bad OS.
Also, MS bought Nokia's mobile division and not the entire company, which is why regulators probably didn't care. MS essentially bought the rotting arm of Nokia to salvage what was still there (patents, developers, R&D, etc.).
Now if Nokia had a large market share and MS tried to take them over, then I think regulators would have looked closer, but Nokia wasn't a big player anymore in the mobile phone market, and they shot themselves in the foot by adopting Windows Mobile OS right after developing their own mobile OS platform and then abandoning it.
I have people-- VERY good people, very knowledgeable people -- who know certain things.. and they told me that they knew that he has a basement full of puppies that he personally chooses from in order to torture them.
Now, we don't know for sure if he does have a torture basement full of puppies, but if he doesn't, then he won't mind us looking in his basement to make sure that he doesn't. He also shouldn't mind providing a full-detailed blueprint of his entire estate to ensure that he doesn't have hidden doors that lead to underground cellars full of tortured puppies.
The problem with your argument is that there are FEDERAL anti-discrimination laws, and then there are also STATE anti-discrimination laws. If a business owner does not comply with these laws, the Federal Government or the State Government is compelled to take action (and if they don't, then nobody will follow those laws if they saw that nobody was punished for violating them), and by action they will fine the business owner. If the business owner fails to pay the fine, they can have their assets seized, and even potential jail time if a judgement is put against them for the fine and they fail to pay it/refuse to pay it(though that doesn't happen as often as you think). But it is ultimately the business owner's responsibility to comply with the state and federal laws that they are required to follow in order to operate a business.
Furthermore, there are protected classes of people because those specific classes of people have a historically high rate of discrimination and harassment and they make out a small portion of our population, thus making it easier for them to be discriminated against. Our constitution guarantees equal rights to EVERYONE. That means that there's no reason to isolate blacks, gays, muslims, transgenders, asians, disabled people, etc., and consider them less of a human being because they are different. Unfortunately, as history has taught us, that hasn't always been the case, and so our nation's congress had to address this by protecting those who are considered most vulnerable to discrimination and unfair treatment solely based on the way they were born.
I don't know what race or sex you are, but if you're white, and a male, you're a lot less likely to encounter discrimination. I myself am white and a male, so I don't encounter discrimination, but my parents raised me to treat each person with the same respect and courtesy that I expect regardless of how they look or the way they were born. There is no reason to treat someone you don't know any other way. It's called human decency, and it's absurd that a nation of mostly Christians(70% as of 2014) can't grasp "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Obviously Jesus wasn't using sarcasm when he said that, but it certainly seems that way based on our country's history.
I understand where you're coming from, but you also must understand that LGBT's have a lengthy history of discrimination, so much so, that they should be considered a protected class of people, especially if they are a minority of the population, making it easier for them to be discriminated against.
The main issue here is that instead of the bakery owner simply refusing them service for no particular reason(which they can do without legal repercussions, such as being fined/sued), they made a specific reason which was discriminatory, thinking that their religious beliefs made them exempt from serving a specific class of minorities. Would you be okay with a business owner refusing service to people of color? or people of the opposite sex? I'm guessing not.
We don't live in the 1950's anymore, and segregation has been abolished. So if it's wrong to deny blacks, hispanics, or asians, etc. then why is it okay to discriminate against gay couples?
Those backwards shop owners need to recognize the year that we live in and adapt, otherwise they will go out of business because society as a whole will reject them due to their backwards thinking.
If we don't have consistency with what is and is not acceptable, then people will do what they want without fear of repercussions and society will degrade, and discriminating against a specific group of people because they were born differently is not acceptable.
You don't want no trouble, don't start no trouble. *They could have refused for a variety of reasons, they choose the one they did for a purpose.*
Exactly! Why can't people understand this?! They could have simply said "no thank you" and refused them service, but because they opened their dumb mouths and said it was because they were gay, that's when shit hit the fan for them.
The gay couple can't file a complaint about them if there's no actual proof of discrimination. They'd simply avoid them in the future and go to another bakery until someone bakes them the cake they want.
You can absolutely refuse to make a cake if the customer wants something you think is offensive written on it. You just can't refuse to make a normal generic wedding cake for someone who's gay.
Sure, if they want a generic cake, then sell them a generic cake. If it was a generic cake then how exactly did they even know that they were gay?
This, exactly. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY the owner could have known that those two men getting married were gay, unless it was clearly written on the cake.
I'm guessing that the prospective customers had brought it up in conversation with the bakery owners during the discussion of how the cake would be designed or what would be put on the cake. Considering that the two cases I heard of are in Colorado and Oregon, which are pretty gay-friendly states, they didn't think it would be an issue to disclose that information in the process of designing the cake.
Both of those states have laws against discriminating against gays. And much to the dismay of the religiously righteous, religion doesn't give them an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals.
You don't understand. You are free to say what you want(shot of verbally threatening someone with physical violence). I can't arrest you; the government can't arrest you. The 1st amendment is protected speech from the GOVERNMENT, not other private citizens. If you say rude dick-ish things the 1st amendment doesn't prevent other people from calling you an asshole and ignoring you.
In this case Twitter said that someone was using their platform to spread hate and being an asshole, so they called him an asshole and kicked him off their podium. They are not a government entity, so it's within their rights to do that. Now if the entire alt-right movement boycotted twitter, that's fine and perfectly legal. It won't really affect them, because twitter would be better off without a group of insufferable assholes with an irrational hatred of non-whites.
People like to bring up the bakery who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. They said that they refused from serving the gay couple because their religion prevents them from baking a cake for gay people. They can say that, but others will likely boycott them, and seeing how gay people are a mostly accepted group of people, their business will likely suffer from it. They won't be arrested by the government.. they may get fined for discrimination against a protected class of people, but they won't serve time and they won't be closed down by the government.
You can be an asshole to whoever you want. You won't arrested for being an asshole, but people will just avoid you and simply not listen to what you have to say.
"Part of free speech is NOT being free from the consequences of said speech."
I'm so tired of hearing this shit. How is that ANY different from oppressive countries? "Although you do have freedom of speech in this country, since you said a mean word against dear leader you get a bullet to the head." Well folks at least we have freedom of speech! What a load of horse shit you spew.
I think you're confusing the two concepts..
Again... You can say whatever you want! The government can't arrest you for saying the president is a giant ass-munching child molester who loves to torture little puppies. It doesn't mean we won't call you an asshole and publicly shame you for being such an asshole. The difference is you aren't being arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. Maybe you should go stay in Turkey for a year so you can truly appreciate the freedom of speech we have in the US.
There's a difference between freedom of speech and discrimination(based on gender/race/sexual preference). Twitter has the right to block whoever they want from speaking on their platform, because that is based on the person's opinions and statements, and not what they are. The cake maker can also refuse service to anyone they want. It's when they say it's because the customer is gay/different race/different gender that they run into trouble.
So then we don't need to tolerate your white nationalist ideas, then? We can simply consider your attempts at attaining white superiority as a sign that you're afraid of becoming irrelevant and a re-attempt at igniting a hate movement against opposing cultures similar to the Nazi Party is a sign of fear?
Or is it that all of you have micro-penises and the only outlet you have to make yourself feel competent is by spreading hatred to receive attention, even if that attention is negative?
Just because they fund the foundation wouldn't mean they would own it. That's now how the Linux Foundation works. There are 8 other Platinum members, and there's also a 16-member board of directors. There would be heavy resistance by the other Linux Foundation members and the overall Linux community if MS tried any of those tricks. The majority of them I imagine are already anti-MS, so anything that MS tried to do in order to negatively affect or influence Linux would be outright opposed and rejected.
My guess is that Satya came in with a more open-source-friendly background and is embracing it, seeing as the trends have been showing more support and acceptance for open-source products, especially in the commercial/enterprise field.
It'll be interesting in the house because he was voted to remove the government establishment, and the Republicans have been the establishment in the house for the last 6 years.
And that's fine. I'm just ensuring there's consistency, and not hypocrisy, because a lot of people I hear that argument from don't even consider Trump's situation and Melania's reaction, as it mirrors what the Clintons when through in the 90's when Bill ran for president.
Also, we may have opinions about what a couple does in their relationship, but they made their own decisions, and we have to respect their decision, because it's theirs and not ours. We only know their public relationship, not the private side.
and it now appears that Comey has the evidence of intent he was missing before.
And you have evidence of this intent, all the sudden? I take it you have personal access to Comey or the laptop and e-mails that are in the FBI's hands, then?
Even they don't know what is/was in the e-mails, as they didn't have a warrant. How in the hell do you know that they magically have intent?
What are your opinions of Melania Trump, then? She consistently stands by Donald's side and defends him despite there being 10+ cases of sexual harrasment/assault piling up against him, as well as his own admittance of groping and fondling women without qualm because of him being famous.
You mean the same FEMA camps that were alleged to be used by Obama on people who were registered gun owners? Grow up and quit sucking Alex Jones' tit of conspiracy propoganda.
Slashdot Mirror
The undoing of Nokia's mobile division was their own fault. They should have never partnered with MS in the first place, and it's not like MS was twisting their arm to do the deal. They took a gamble with Windows Phone OS instead of continuing with their own MeeGo mobile OS and it didn't pay off, so their shares plummeted due to lack of interest from operators which led to a lack of sales. Nothing was deliberate, Windows Phone OS just sucked and nobody wanted to use it, but still, in a way it was MS's fault because of a bad OS.
Also, MS bought Nokia's mobile division and not the entire company, which is why regulators probably didn't care. MS essentially bought the rotting arm of Nokia to salvage what was still there (patents, developers, R&D, etc.).
Now if Nokia had a large market share and MS tried to take them over, then I think regulators would have looked closer, but Nokia wasn't a big player anymore in the mobile phone market, and they shot themselves in the foot by adopting Windows Mobile OS right after developing their own mobile OS platform and then abandoning it.
I have people-- VERY good people, very knowledgeable people -- who know certain things.. and they told me that they knew that he has a basement full of puppies that he personally chooses from in order to torture them.
Now, we don't know for sure if he does have a torture basement full of puppies, but if he doesn't, then he won't mind us looking in his basement to make sure that he doesn't. He also shouldn't mind providing a full-detailed blueprint of his entire estate to ensure that he doesn't have hidden doors that lead to underground cellars full of tortured puppies.
Both Intel and AMD manufacture their CPU's in the US, is manufacturing a phone that much different?
You can also probably look at this list to find others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem with your argument is that there are FEDERAL anti-discrimination laws, and then there are also STATE anti-discrimination laws. If a business owner does not comply with these laws, the Federal Government or the State Government is compelled to take action (and if they don't, then nobody will follow those laws if they saw that nobody was punished for violating them), and by action they will fine the business owner. If the business owner fails to pay the fine, they can have their assets seized, and even potential jail time if a judgement is put against them for the fine and they fail to pay it/refuse to pay it(though that doesn't happen as often as you think). But it is ultimately the business owner's responsibility to comply with the state and federal laws that they are required to follow in order to operate a business.
Furthermore, there are protected classes of people because those specific classes of people have a historically high rate of discrimination and harassment and they make out a small portion of our population, thus making it easier for them to be discriminated against. Our constitution guarantees equal rights to EVERYONE. That means that there's no reason to isolate blacks, gays, muslims, transgenders, asians, disabled people, etc., and consider them less of a human being because they are different. Unfortunately, as history has taught us, that hasn't always been the case, and so our nation's congress had to address this by protecting those who are considered most vulnerable to discrimination and unfair treatment solely based on the way they were born.
I don't know what race or sex you are, but if you're white, and a male, you're a lot less likely to encounter discrimination. I myself am white and a male, so I don't encounter discrimination, but my parents raised me to treat each person with the same respect and courtesy that I expect regardless of how they look or the way they were born. There is no reason to treat someone you don't know any other way. It's called human decency, and it's absurd that a nation of mostly Christians(70% as of 2014) can't grasp "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Obviously Jesus wasn't using sarcasm when he said that, but it certainly seems that way based on our country's history.
Care to elaborate?
I understand where you're coming from, but you also must understand that LGBT's have a lengthy history of discrimination, so much so, that they should be considered a protected class of people, especially if they are a minority of the population, making it easier for them to be discriminated against.
The main issue here is that instead of the bakery owner simply refusing them service for no particular reason(which they can do without legal repercussions, such as being fined/sued), they made a specific reason which was discriminatory, thinking that their religious beliefs made them exempt from serving a specific class of minorities. Would you be okay with a business owner refusing service to people of color? or people of the opposite sex? I'm guessing not.
We don't live in the 1950's anymore, and segregation has been abolished. So if it's wrong to deny blacks, hispanics, or asians, etc. then why is it okay to discriminate against gay couples?
Those backwards shop owners need to recognize the year that we live in and adapt, otherwise they will go out of business because society as a whole will reject them due to their backwards thinking.
If we don't have consistency with what is and is not acceptable, then people will do what they want without fear of repercussions and society will degrade, and discriminating against a specific group of people because they were born differently is not acceptable.
You don't want no trouble, don't start no trouble. *They could have refused for a variety of reasons, they choose the one they did for a purpose.*
Exactly! Why can't people understand this?! They could have simply said "no thank you" and refused them service, but because they opened their dumb mouths and said it was because they were gay, that's when shit hit the fan for them.
The gay couple can't file a complaint about them if there's no actual proof of discrimination. They'd simply avoid them in the future and go to another bakery until someone bakes them the cake they want.
You can absolutely refuse to make a cake if the customer wants something you think is offensive written on it. You just can't refuse to make a normal generic wedding cake for someone who's gay.
Sure, if they want a generic cake, then sell them a generic cake. If it was a generic cake then how exactly did they even know that they were gay?
This, exactly. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY the owner could have known that those two men getting married were gay, unless it was clearly written on the cake.
I'm guessing that the prospective customers had brought it up in conversation with the bakery owners during the discussion of how the cake would be designed or what would be put on the cake. Considering that the two cases I heard of are in Colorado and Oregon, which are pretty gay-friendly states, they didn't think it would be an issue to disclose that information in the process of designing the cake.
Both of those states have laws against discriminating against gays. And much to the dismay of the religiously righteous, religion doesn't give them an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals.
I imagine they don't, thus their illogical arguments
You don't understand. You are free to say what you want(shot of verbally threatening someone with physical violence). I can't arrest you; the government can't arrest you. The 1st amendment is protected speech from the GOVERNMENT, not other private citizens. If you say rude dick-ish things the 1st amendment doesn't prevent other people from calling you an asshole and ignoring you.
In this case Twitter said that someone was using their platform to spread hate and being an asshole, so they called him an asshole and kicked him off their podium. They are not a government entity, so it's within their rights to do that. Now if the entire alt-right movement boycotted twitter, that's fine and perfectly legal. It won't really affect them, because twitter would be better off without a group of insufferable assholes with an irrational hatred of non-whites.
People like to bring up the bakery who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. They said that they refused from serving the gay couple because their religion prevents them from baking a cake for gay people. They can say that, but others will likely boycott them, and seeing how gay people are a mostly accepted group of people, their business will likely suffer from it. They won't be arrested by the government.. they may get fined for discrimination against a protected class of people, but they won't serve time and they won't be closed down by the government.
You can be an asshole to whoever you want. You won't arrested for being an asshole, but people will just avoid you and simply not listen to what you have to say.
"Part of free speech is NOT being free from the consequences of said speech."
I'm so tired of hearing this shit. How is that ANY different from oppressive countries? "Although you do have freedom of speech in this country, since you said a mean word against dear leader you get a bullet to the head." Well folks at least we have freedom of speech! What a load of horse shit you spew.
I think you're confusing the two concepts..
Again... You can say whatever you want! The government can't arrest you for saying the president is a giant ass-munching child molester who loves to torture little puppies. It doesn't mean we won't call you an asshole and publicly shame you for being such an asshole. The difference is you aren't being arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. Maybe you should go stay in Turkey for a year so you can truly appreciate the freedom of speech we have in the US.
There's a difference between freedom of speech and discrimination(based on gender/race/sexual preference). Twitter has the right to block whoever they want from speaking on their platform, because that is based on the person's opinions and statements, and not what they are. The cake maker can also refuse service to anyone they want. It's when they say it's because the customer is gay/different race/different gender that they run into trouble.
So then we don't need to tolerate your white nationalist ideas, then? We can simply consider your attempts at attaining white superiority as a sign that you're afraid of becoming irrelevant and a re-attempt at igniting a hate movement against opposing cultures similar to the Nazi Party is a sign of fear?
Or is it that all of you have micro-penises and the only outlet you have to make yourself feel competent is by spreading hatred to receive attention, even if that attention is negative?
Just because they fund the foundation wouldn't mean they would own it. That's now how the Linux Foundation works. There are 8 other Platinum members, and there's also a 16-member board of directors. There would be heavy resistance by the other Linux Foundation members and the overall Linux community if MS tried any of those tricks. The majority of them I imagine are already anti-MS, so anything that MS tried to do in order to negatively affect or influence Linux would be outright opposed and rejected.
My guess is that Satya came in with a more open-source-friendly background and is embracing it, seeing as the trends have been showing more support and acceptance for open-source products, especially in the commercial/enterprise field.
They may want to, but it won't happen. Regulators in the US and the EU would stop them in their tracks (or at least we'd expect them to).
So you're stating that thousands and thousands of scientists with empirical evidence are wrong? You're THE expert on climate change, all the sudden?
It'll be interesting in the house because he was voted to remove the government establishment, and the Republicans have been the establishment in the house for the last 6 years.
If by celeb you mean "Former NSA Contractor-turned-whistleblower wanted by the US Gov't", then absolutely.
And that's fine. I'm just ensuring there's consistency, and not hypocrisy, because a lot of people I hear that argument from don't even consider Trump's situation and Melania's reaction, as it mirrors what the Clintons when through in the 90's when Bill ran for president.
Also, we may have opinions about what a couple does in their relationship, but they made their own decisions, and we have to respect their decision, because it's theirs and not ours. We only know their public relationship, not the private side.
and it now appears that Comey has the evidence of intent he was missing before.
And you have evidence of this intent, all the sudden? I take it you have personal access to Comey or the laptop and e-mails that are in the FBI's hands, then?
Even they don't know what is/was in the e-mails, as they didn't have a warrant. How in the hell do you know that they magically have intent?
It takes a special set of rose colored glasses to avoid seeing this level of corruption for what it is.
So I take it you're voting 3rd party, then? Because it takes a VERY special set of rose-colored glasses to avoid seeing Trump for what he really is.
Either that or you're a hypocrite with a special case of cognitive dissonance.
What are your opinions of Melania Trump, then? She consistently stands by Donald's side and defends him despite there being 10+ cases of sexual harrasment/assault piling up against him, as well as his own admittance of groping and fondling women without qualm because of him being famous.
Shhhh. Don't bring that up. The Trump Hivemind doesn't appreciate facts.
You mean the same FEMA camps that were alleged to be used by Obama on people who were registered gun owners? Grow up and quit sucking Alex Jones' tit of conspiracy propoganda.